PEOPLE OF MI V DAVID ANTHONY HOWARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 10, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 295018
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 09-012701
DAVID ANTHONY HOWARD,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: MURPHY, C.J., and K.F. KELLY and STEPHENS, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The prosecution appeals by leave granted a trial court order granting defendant’s motion
to suppress evidence found in defendant’s vehicle. We reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
The prosecution argues that the trial court erred by suppressing the gun found in the
glove compartment of defendant’s vehicle following his arrest for operating a vehicle while
intoxicated (OWI), MCL 257.625(1). The prosecution makes several arguments for reversal
including the court’s application of the holding in Arizona v Gant, ___ US ___; 129 S Ct 1710;
173 L Ed 2d 485 (2009), the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule and the inevitable
discovery of the weapon during an inventory search. We will not address those arguments,
however, because the issue of the application of the automobile exception to the requirement of
search warrant is outcome determinative. “We review de novo whether the Fourth Amendment
was violated and whether an exclusionary rule applies.” People v Hyde, 285 Mich App 428,
438; 775 NW2d 833 (2009).
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by both the state and
federal constitutions. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11. Generally, a search or seizure
conducted without a warrant is unreasonable unless there exists a circumstance establishing an
exception to the warrant requirement, People v Tierney, 266 Mich App 687, 704; 703 NW2d 204
(2005), and if evidence is unconstitutionally seized, it must be excluded from trial, People v
Brown, 279 Mich App 116, 127; 755 NW2d 664 (2008). “Exclusion of improperly obtained
evidence serves as a deterrent to police misconduct, protects the right to privacy, and preserves
judicial integrity.” Id.
-1-
The prosecution argues that although the officers did not have a warrant, because the
officers had probable cause to believe that defendant’s vehicle contained a gun, their search was
valid under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. We agree.
A well-established exception to requiring a warrant for a search of a vehicle is the
“automobile” exception. People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 418; 605 NW2d 667 (2000). As
long as the police have probable cause of finding evidence, a warrantless search of a readily
mobile automobile is permitted. Id. at 418-419. The automobile exception permits a vehicle to
be searched without a warrant, even in non-exigent circumstances, so long as the vehicle is
mobile and law enforcement officers have probable cause to believe that it contains
incriminating evidence. Maryland v Dyson, 527 US 465, 466; 119 S Ct 2013; 144 L Ed 2d 442
(1999). Further, as recognized in Gant, “[i]f there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains
evidence of criminal activity, United States v Ross, 456 US 798, 820-821; 102 S Ct 2157; 72 L
Ed 2d 572 (1982), authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be
found.” Gant, 129 S Ct at 1721. The Court also observed that “Ross allows searches for
evidence relevant to offenses other than the offense of arrest, and the scope of the search
authorized is broader.” Id.
Probable cause to search “exists when the facts and circumstances known to the police
officers at the time of the search would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime
has been or is being committed and that evidence will be found in a particular place.” People v
Beuschlein, 245 Mich App 744, 750; 630 NW2d 921 (2001). If probable cause justifies the
search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its
contents that may conceal the object of the search, including all containers within a car.
Wyoming v Houghton, 526 US 295, 301; 119 S Ct 1297; 143 L Ed 2d 408 (1999).
The trial court found that there was no testimony during the evidentiary hearing that
indicated either officer had probable cause to believe defendant’s vehicle contained evidence
relevant to offenses other than the OWI offense. Officer Matthew Greb followed defendant from
the bar parking lot and pulled him over for a traffic infraction. During the traffic stop, Officer
Matthew Lamita, who assisted Greb with the stop, looked through the passenger side window
and observed an empty gun holster on the passenger seat and a single bullet in center console of
the vehicle. Defendant told Greb that he did not have a gun and that he did not have a concealed
weapons permit. Also, when Greb patted down defendant, he did not find a gun on defendant’s
person.
Based on the evidence of the empty holster on the passenger seat and the bullet in the
center console, in addition to a gun not being found on defendant’s person and defendant’s
statements that he did not have a concealed weapons permit, it was reasonable for the officers to
believe that defendant was illegally carrying a concealed weapon in a motor vehicle. Thus, the
trial court clearly erred in finding otherwise and Lamita’s search was a proper search under the
automobile exception because there was probable cause to believe defendant’s vehicle contained
evidence of criminal activity relevant to an offense other than the offense of arrest.
-2-
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.